10 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN INSTITUTE. [VOL. XI 
Portions of two coralla are represented in the specimens: these are 
each about 4 inches in diameter and are of identical structure except 
that the corallites are larger in one specimen than in the other. 
The coarser specimen is part of a hemispherical or cake-shaped 
mass composed of polygonal, closely appressed tubes about 2.5 mm. 
in average diameter. The walls are thin and appear to be common to 
the contiguous tubes. Although the specimen is well preserved, there 
is no evidence of the presence of mural pores or septal spines. Straight 
or slightly arched tabule are well and regularly developed at intervals 
of rather less than one mi! imetre. 
The finer specimen differs only in the size of the tubes which are 
1.5 to 2mm. indiameter. The tabulae are perfect, only slightly waving, 
and spaced at intervals of .5 mm. 
Both specimens are so well preserved that the absence of pores 
and spines can scarcely be attributed to mineralisation, nevertheless 
such an assumption must be made if we are to place the specimen in 
any known genus or even family of Palaeozoic corals. If we assume 
the presence of pores in the angles of the corallites and a slight develop- 
ment of spiniform septa the forms are strikingly like F. aspera, particu- 
larly in view of the following remarks of Lambe in the work cited above: 
‘Specimens of a Favosites have also been collected at East Selkirk and 
Lower Fort Garry, Manitoba, that are doubtfully referred to this 
species; they do not show the pores, although otherwise the structure 
is well preserved. The rocks at these localities have been assigned 
by Mr. Whiteaves to the Galena-Trenton, so that if, through the medium 
of other specimens from these places, the pores are found to be situated 
at the angles of the corallites, the downward extension of the range of 
Favosites aspera will be considerable’’. 
By assuming the presence of very short septa our specimens approach 
very close to Favistella (Columnaria) franklini, Salter. I am inclined 
to favour this identification. As the original description in ‘‘Suther- 
land’s Voyage”’ is somewhat difficult to obtain, it is reproduced in full 
below: 
“ Favistella franklini—Masses a foot in diameter composed of long 
polygonal tubes, nearly two lines broad, of very nearly equal size on 
the surface, the growth is by interposition of young tubes, which soon 
attain to the adult size. The walls of the tube are as thick in reality 
as those of the last species (Favistella reticulata), but appear much 
thinner from the absence of lamella: these are reduced to mere longi- 
tudinal striz, seldom projecting at all into the tube, and in general 
scarcely visible to the naked eye. The diaphragms are very closely 
packed, about four in the space of a line throughout the largest specimen, 
